Armstrong 2: Documents by date

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

HUB LAW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
California State Bar No. 107601
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

FILED

MAR - 3 1992

HOWARD HANSON

MARIN COUNTY CLERK
By A. Cucpwr, Deputy

Attorney for Defendant
GERALD ARMSTRONG

RECEIVED

MAR 3 1992

HUB LAW OFFICES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

11

12

13

14

15

16

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California
not-for-profit religious
corporation ;

Plaintiffs,

vs .

GERALD ARMSTRONG; DOES 1
through 25, inclusive,

17

Defendants .

18

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.)

No. 152 229

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF
HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Date: March 6, 1992

Time: 10:30 a.m.

Calendar: L & M
Hearing Judge: Dept. .4
Trial Judge: Not Assigned
Arbitration: Not Assigned

INTRODUCTION

On February 4, 1992, the Honorable Beverly B. Savitt ordered
Defendant GERALD ARMSTRONG to show cause why a certain settlement
agreement should not be enforced against him by means of a
preliminary injunction and set a hearing on the matter for 10:30
a.m. on March 6, 1992 in Department 5. Greene Declaration, at
2 .

This ex parte application is for one continuance for a period
of thirty (30) days, or whatever period the Court determines to be

HUB 1AW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
711 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-0360

Page 1 .

HEM0RAHDDM OF POXHTS AHD AUTHORITIES SUPPORTIBG COBTIHUAHCE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2C

21

22

22

2<

21

2(

2'

2!

FF1CES

Esquire

f in order to allow ARMSTRONG to meet plaintiff's
application for a preliminary injunction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The factual basis asserted in support of the application for
a preliminary injunction involves facts which span an eight year
period of time. The legal relief sought by plaintiff, if granted,
at minimum would result in a prior restraint of Defendant
ARMSTRONG'S First Amendment right to freedom of speech as well as
prohibit him, in perpetuity, from engaging in gainful employment.
Additionally, were a preliminary injunction to issue the public s
right to know — to obtain information regarding the public issue
of the nature and practices of Scientology - would be adversely
affected, thus injuring the "marketplace of ideas" protected by

the First Amendment. Id. at H 3.

The agreement which plaintiff seeks the assistance of this
Court to enforce against ARMSTRONG contains a number of provisions
the net effect of which violate public policy as

(1) an obstruction of justice;

(2) a suppression of evidence of judicially tested facts
which discredit the Scientology organization; and

(3) an offer to dissuade participation in judicial
proceedings in violation of Penal Code section 138. Id. at If 4.

Plaintiff has purchased the agreement and cooperation of
those who were Defendant ARMSTRONG'S former counsel at the time he
executed the settlement agreement. Such attorneys are now
prevented from providing any information to ARMSTRONG in this case
regarding the circumstances of the execution of the settlement
agreement, by declaration or otherwise, unless said attorneys are

Page 2 .

memorandum of poihts ahd authorities support ibg cohtihuarce

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HUB LAW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
71 1 Sir Francis Drake Btvd.
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-0360

compelled by deposition subpoena to do so. ARMSTRONG has
requested plaintiff to release said attorneys from the strictures
of said agreement, but has not yet received any response from
plaintiff on this issue. Id. at 6, 7.

Finally, ARMSTRONG was one of a number of individuals
knowledgeable of the illegal and criminal practices of plaintiff.
All said individuals have been silenced by a "global" or "block"
settlement agreement, of which ARMSTRONG is a single component. It
is this agreement that plaintiff seeks the Court's assistance in
enforcing against ARMSTRONG. Id. at *[ 5. Like ARMSTRONG'S former
attorneys, such individuals have been silenced with respect to
discussing the circumstances wherein ARMSTRONG executed the
settlement agreement, unless compelled to do so by deposition
subpoena. Id. at U 8.

Since plaintiff relies on the Eleventh Circuit decision
upholding the District Court's denial of the press' request for
access to the sealed Wakefield contempt proceedings, in Wakefield
v. Church of Scientology in the U.S. District Court, Middle
District of Florida, Case No. 82— 1313— CIV— T— 10A, it raises the
facts underlying the Wakefield proceedings. For a period of time,
ARMSTRONG'S counsel was counsel for Wakefield and possesses
information material to the manner in which the Scientology
Organization obtain the preliminary injunction therein. Since
those proceedings have been sealed, I ARMSTRONG'S counsel is
constrained from discussing his knowledge thereof without an order
from Judge Kovachevich allowing him to do so. Id. at 1 9.

Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by any delay occasioned by
the grant of a reasonable continuance. Plaintiff complains that

MEMORAHDUM OF FOISTS AHD AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING COHTISUAHGE

.r:- x-sr*

Page 3 .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2C

21

22

22

24

21

2(

2'.

2i

IFFICES

, Esquire

Drake Bh>

ZA 94960

-0360

the conduct of ARMSTRONG, which it would have this court enjoin,
commenced in June 1991. In light of the fact that plaintiff
waited until February 1992 to seek an injunction belies any claim
it may make that the granting of a continuance would prejudice it.
Were ARMSTRONG ' s conduct so prejudicial, plaintiff would not have
delayed eight (8) months in seeking injunctive relief.

Id. at K 11.

For the foregoing reasons, as well as for other reasons,
defendant GERALD ARMSTRONG desires one reasonable continuance to
enable him to meet plaintiff's application for a preliminary
injunction.

ARGUMENT

In pertinent part. Code of Civil Procedure section 527 (a)

states as follows:

An injunction may be granted at any time before
judgment on a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if
the complaint in one case, or the affidavits in the
other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist
therefor.

-k -k -k

The defendant, however, shall be entitled, as of
course, to one continuance for a reasonable period, it
he or she desires it, to enable him of her to meet the
application for preliminary injunction. . . .

Section 527 has been interpreted not to be as absolute as it
literally reads. In circumstances, such as that which is before
the court now, where a temporary restraining order has not issued,
whether to grant a continuance is discretionary with the Court.
Although in cases wherein a temporary restraining order has not
issued, the responding party has no absolute right to a
continuance, Wutchumna Water Co. v. Superior Court (1932) 215 C.
734, 739, 12 P.2d 1033, 1035, the court, in an exercise of its

p^gQ 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING CONTINUANCE

• 1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HUB LAW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
711 Sir Frauds Drake BhtL
San Artsehno, CA 94960
(415) 258-0360

discretion may grant one for a reasonable period of time. Cohen
v . Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 493, 8 CR 922; Accord , 1

C.E.B. Civil Procedure Before Trial, Injunctions, § 1557.

CONCLUSION

In light of the facts in this case pertaining to defendant
ARMSTRONG'S need for a reasonable continuance, and the absence of
prejudice to plaintiff, as set forth above, and in light of the
fact that plaintiff delayed one week in filing its moving papers
after the point at which it obtained an Order to Show Cause issued
from Judge Savitt, defendant GERALD ARMSTRONG respectfully submits
that his ex parte application for a reasonable continuance should

be granted.

DATED: March 3, 1992

HUB LAW OFFICES

i'ORD GREENE)

Attorney for ^Defendant
GERALD ARMSTRONG

Page 5 .

MEMDRAHDUM OF POXHTS AHD AUTHORITIES SUP PORT IBG COHTIHUAHCE